National Framework for CRED Program Indicators

1. Update from the Grassroots Collaboration Galaxy IV September 18, 2013 Pittsburgh, PA National Framework for CRED Program Indicators

2. Our Team • Mary Simon Leuci, University of Missouri • Charlie French, University of New Hampshire • Deborah Tootle, Iowa State University • Paul Lachapelle, Montana State University • Scott Chazdon, University of Minnesota • Susan Jakes, North Carolina State University • Walt Whitmer, Pennsylvania State University • Sandra Thompson, Florida A&M University • Aida Balsano, USDA-NIFA • Rachel Welborn, Southern Rural Development Center

3. Our Goals for Today • A brief snapshot of how we got here • Launch of the national initiative in 2012 • Current status and efforts update • Current challenges and next steps • Get your input and guidance

4. What’s Driving Us… • Need to tell compelling story at state, local, and national levels about collective impact of our community and economic development work • To improve our ability to: • Gather and assess collective impacts and leverage each other’s strengths • Develop support forCRED programming • Make strategic decisions regarding the importance, value, and potential of CRED programs

5. How We Got Here • Historical discussion of need for collective impacts across program, state, regional, and national levels • North Central Region took the lead beginning work in 2006 • South began to follow NC lead – then Northeast and Western regions, all assisted by the RRDCs • Daylong workshop held at NACDEP (2012) culminating in launch of the National Initiative and core team

6. Our Immediate Goals • Build national network of partners to establish common framework for capturing and sharing the impact of CRED work • Identify core set of indicators that convey impact of our work regionally and nationally, while recognizing our diversity • Develop and share set of user-friendly tools and instruments that partners (or states and regions) can use to collect impact data • Identify ways of leveraging each other's resources and strengths to enhance our impacts on communities

7. Our Challenges • Diversity of: • Programs within CRED • State and regional programs and priorities • Data collection methods across states and regions • Stakeholders and what information is most important to them

8. Our Challenges • Attributing community or organizational impact to our work • Limited (but emerging) consensus around what is most important and feasible to measure • Consistency of indicators and aggregation • Time and resources

9. Brief Regional Updates Northeast North Central West South

10. North Central • Work to identify common indicators across CD programs began in 2006 • Tied to program logic models. • Collaboratively defined, collected and compiled impact indicators and published report since 2010 (4 years). • Data compiled, maintained and published at NCRCRD. • Indicators mostly economic, several reflect social and civic engagement.

11. North Central • Each state enters data on EXCEL spreadsheet. • Includes space for vignettes. • Not every state will report on all indicators. But all states are reporting on some of the indicators. • Program leaders revisit indicators each year.

12. North Central • Report is shared with extension directors, NIFA, other partners and used in each state. • Each state also uses its own data within the state. • Collecting data and tracking impact challenging because of differences across states.

13. South • Similar to North Central structure and process. • Data compiled, maintained and published at SRDC. • Major difference in South – 1890 LGUs. Organizational structure and data needs differ from 1862 LGUs. • Has built a list of indicators based on NC Region with some modifications • Data collection initiated in August 2013.

14. South • First year will be mostly a test case, and work toward better data collection in 2014. • Have strong regional team. • Initial work logic models too cumbersome  went straight indicators of impact. • See national collaboration as critical to building the collective knowledge; has been key resource for south.

15. Northeast • Completed regional survey of potential indicators and related issues Fall 2012. • Next steps – program leaders/state contacts buy-in. • Several states working on developing common reporting system. VT, NH, ME, and MA including activity data, outcome indicators, data collection, and narratives. http://lmprs.net/.

16. Northeast • Key survey findings include: • Do not perceive ourselves as doing a good job evaluating the impact of our work. • Strong desire by most to be more effective at measuring impacts and thinking how we can do this regionally. • To be realistic with our expectations, we should hone in on a set of 5(ish) indicators that span across CED functions that we can all agree upon.

17. West • Last region to get involved • Now moving forward – 3 states cooperating • APLU's Commission on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Economic Prosperity (CICEP) • The Metrics Working Group

18. 1890 Institutions • Currently working with the Southern Region • Not all institutions represented • Sample preliminary indicators include: • Number of loan applications for youth and adults • Number of youth and adult business start-ups • Number of community-based food and other products markets • Number of youth and adult business expansions • Number of business feasibility studies conducted • Number of jobs created or retained • Number of tax-exempt organization (CDCs) trainings conducted • Number of tax-exempt organization (CDCs) start-ups • Number of community based meetings (mapping, organizing, visioning, recognition) • Number of enterprise development and expansion trainings conducted for youth and adults • Number of land retention and estate planning trainings conducted

19. Discussion & Questions • What state are you from? • What questions or issues does all this raise? • Do the indicators identified make sense? • What more would you like to see as all this evolves?

20. 2013-14 Plans • Gather input from this meeting and national CRED meeting of PLs (9-16-2013) • Establish opportunities for others to provide input and join us. • Continue to refine regional indicators and enhance the processes for collection and compilation. • Set of indicators nationally identified by 1/1/2014. • Develop preliminary National CRED Impacts Report end of fiscal year (2013 data). • Another year before aggregate with multiple regions. • Focus on how we use the data to tell the stories of our impact • Keep making progress…

21. Follow-up Survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CREDIND13 For more Information, contact: NC: Mary Simon Leuci, leucim@missouri.edu South: Susan Jakes, susan_jakes@ncsu.edu West: Paul Lachapelle, paul.lachapelle@montana.edu NE: Walt Whitmer, wew2@psu.edu, Charlie French, charlie.french@unh.edu 1890: Sandra Thompson, sandra.thompson@famu.edu THANK YOU!